Is Your Worldview Correct?

[The Sum of Awe]

I have no idea. I'm willing to accept that I might be wrong. My guess is as good as anyone else's.

In fact, I may even be surprised if I am right about everything. It just seems statistically unlikely

 

[JRMcC]

A question for the people of RF.

Do you consider the worldview you personally hold, or the religion you follow, or the philosophy you ascribe to, to be the truth? As in, do you think that yours is THE truth, or that it has no less of a claim to truth than any other philosophy?

To get the ball rolling, myself: I hold a collection of beliefs which are more or less in line with Advaita Vedanta, within Hinduism. However, I do not hold out that my beliefs are in some way more correct than anybody else's, as our perception of things is so lacking that it can't be said what the truth is in any case. My beliefs just make sense to me. I think of all belief systems as equally valid.

I'd be fascinated to see what kind of proportions of people think of their own worldview, or system of beliefs, as being true. As, indeed, it might be.

I think it's unlikely that anyone on Earth has figured out what the truth is. Certain things appear to be more plausible than others, and in theory the truth should be knowable. But when you get right down to it no one really understands what's going on here.

 

[mainliner]

I have no idea. I'm willing to accept that I might be wrong. My guess is as good as anyone else's.

In fact, I may even be surprised if I am right about everything. It just seems statistically unlikely

your a gizillion times more correct than i was at your age buddy

just saying

 

[Kirran]

Other.

Mine's only as good as I make it so obviously I don't consider mine the ultimate philosophy constantly improving it as I learn things.

Not all philosophies or worldviews are equal and many of them I consider weak to logic or critical thinking.

Other - #1 with "any other" replaced by "some others"

I focus more on the worldview's alignment with objective and subjective truths and it's effect on the individual, others, world around them than if it stays firmly attached to self-evident boundaries.

How precise is your worldview and how beneficial is it, equal importance I think. It's easier to experience good living than it is to remove all ignorance. Our worldviews are ever-evolving tools and not our masters.

I picked "other".

I follow a pluralistic philosophy. What that means is that I do believe that there isn't a singular "right" way, including my own. However, there are still plenty of "wrong" ways. Exactly what constitutes "right" and "wrong" is very non-static.

These three seem to represent a fairly common strand, of one's own system of beliefs being more correct than some others, but not all others.

"No, it is wrong, and another is correct"

But I don't know which one, since I don't trust my worldview to get me there.

Kind of stuck in a conundrum there, huh? :L

No....not correct.
I voted <no more so than any other>.

So, everybody's wrong? I can get on board with that.

i voted but im not quite sure what beliefs are in a religious sense .......... I could demonstrate through the medium of dance if you wish


do you wish ?

I do, I really do.

Other.

My worldview is the correct one for me, and other people's worldviews are equally valid for them.
As for my religion, it only applies to Jews; it is our relationship with the Creator, and other peoples should find a meaningful relationship of their own.

Do you believe certain aspects, such as the existence of a Creator, are true, while others aspects, including the relationship of people with the Creator, and how they perceive the Creator, will vary? As per differing covenants etc.

I had to overuse the word Creator a bit there to avoid pronouns.

My world view is absolutely and completely wrong. All the time. Just ask Boss.

Seriously, I don't see things in right and wrong, so it is a moot question for me. There are POVs and I think it ends at that.

Kind of like good and bad. They can be useful in a conversation, but they're not really there.

I'm similar to what you're saying here really, but you've explained it more clearly and in less words, IMO.

I have no idea. I'm willing to accept that I might be wrong. My guess is as good as anyone else's.

In fact, I may even be surprised if I am right about everything. It just seems statistically unlikely

I liked this one, it's so matter-of-fact.

 

[Revoltingest]

So, everybody's wrong? I can get on board with that.

Or everyone is simply not correct (ie, having THE TRUTH).

 

[Kirran]

Or everyone is simply not correct (ie, having THE TRUTH).

Fair play, that's a very important distinction.

 

[Jumi]

How could every way of thinking be equal? That sounds like false pride in everyone being wrong and no one being wise. It spells doom for whole humanity if everyone starts thinking that way. We should be right and where we are wrong we should be honorable enough to admit our failings.

That which is natural and causes least harm is far superior to that which seeks to suppress human nature, goodwill toward people and destroy our environment.

What has most benefits for individuals and humanity as a whole is better.

If someone can convince me by honest example and reason that my way of thinking is somehow wrong, I'd be most glad to receive that benefit for myself and those who I know.

I have so far "converted" from atheism to agnostic because I feel this will ease dialogue and bring us together without compromising what I honestly think.

 

[illykitty]

Seems I fall into the "other" category as well.

I don't consider my views to be more true than all, but I believe it is more so than some. I don't agree that all of them are correct because there's some views that go against scientific findings and/or are harmful on various degrees.

Anything that isn't against our understanding of the universe, is simply different, not better or worse than my views.

 

[Tarheeler]

Do you believe certain aspects, such as the existence of a Creator, are true, while others aspects, including the relationship of people with the Creator, and how they perceive the Creator, will vary? As per differing covenants etc.

I had to overuse the word Creator a bit there to avoid pronouns.

As a monotheist, I do believe that there is a single God. It's nature, role in the world, and just about everything else is certainly up for debate.

And I think our perperception of that God is also up for debate. Is it Divine or natural? One God or many? Miracle or physics?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Developing a worldview, I believe, takes a whole lifetime. We can certainly draw some conclusions along the way - but if you aren't constantly learning from the world around you, and constantly honing and refining your worldview, then you're being left behind by reality.

I honestly think this is the problem with religions - they're not open to better understandings or more accurate interpretations. Religions assume that conclusions made thousands of years ago are sufficient for forever... At any tine throughout human History this has just never been shown to be a good model for sculpting a worldview or for creating societal laws.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

A question for the people of RF.

I couldn't vote. I was going to vote no, but the only no options were either that another was correct or that mine was as correct as any other. I'd say I'm wrong, but while some worldviews/philosophies might be right and I'm not sure about a lot, there are positions I believe to be wrong and thus it would not be true for me to say that my worldview/philosophy is (IMO) "no more

than any other."​

 

[NulliuSINverba]

A question for the people of RF.

Do you consider the worldview you personally hold, or the religion you follow, or the philosophy you ascribe to, to be the truth?

That seems much more like three questions.

As in, do you think that yours is THE truth, or that it has no less of a claim to truth than any other philosophy?

A worldview that is grounded in evidence, rational thought, and empirical observation is undoubtedly closer to the truth than one built on a foundation of unsubstantiated claims and/or wishful thinking.

To get the ball rolling, myself: I hold a collection of beliefs which are more or less in line with Advaita Vedanta, within Hinduism. However, I do not hold out that my beliefs are in some way more correct than anybody else's, as our perception of things is so lacking that it can't be said what the truth is in any case.

So your worldview automatically negates even the possibility of approaching the truth, correct?

Essentially, you'd be obliged to concede that your own worldview is no more or less justified than that of a person who claimed to believe that Cthulu is actually sleeping under the South Pacific?

How do you distinguish between fact and fiction? Or do you? Can you?

My beliefs just make sense to me. I think of all belief systems as equally valid.

So to believe that the world is flat is no closer to the truth than to believe that the earth is a sphere? To believe that the sun spins around the Earth is no more or less accurate than to believe that the earth orbits the sun?

Perhaps you'd like to clarify?

I'd be fascinated to see what kind of proportions of people think of their own worldview, or system of beliefs, as being true. As, indeed, it might be.

Worldviews that operate on assumptions of total equivocation or absolute certainty are best viewed with the utmost skepticism.

 

[Kirran]

That which is natural and causes least harm is far superior to that which seeks to suppress human nature, goodwill toward people and destroy our environment.

What has most benefits for individuals and humanity as a whole is better.

Well these are both just matters of opinion. Something which benefits humanity isn't in some way intrinsically better than something which harms it. But you ascribe that based on your own system of morals and preferences. So, while it may well be true that you like that which causes least harm better than that which suppresses goodwill, and while most people might agree with it, this only stems from your feelings on the matter.

I couldn't vote. I was going to vote no, but the only no options were either that another was correct or that mine was as correct as any other. I'd say I'm wrong, but while some worldviews/philosophies might be right and I'm not sure about a lot, there are positions I believe to be wrong and thus it would not be true for me to say that my worldview/philosophy is (IMO) "no more

than any other."​

So you're saying that it's unlikely that your particular worldview is correct, but that there are certain others which are certainly incorrect?

To have an option suitable for everybody would have been pretty difficult.

That seems much more like three questions.

Answer the one you prefer.

A worldview that is grounded in evidence, rational thought, and empirical observation is undoubtedly closer to the truth than one built on a foundation of unsubstantiated claims and/or wishful thinking.

Our senses of perception, and indeed our entire array of methods of observing the world we live in, are so inaccurate as to be barely even perceiving things. All we ever really experience is our own nervous system (I can't remember who said that, but somebody). So while certainly, we've built up a massive system of scientific knowledge which is, for the most part internally consistent, there's no real confirmation that this maps to 'reality' as it really is. Only that it can suitably explain, again for the most part, what we observe within our nervous system.

So your worldview automatically negates even the possibility of approaching the truth, correct?

Man, that's an interesting question. I'd say, no. But, within my worldview, it's releasing attachment to opinions about truth, and accepting that what we think of as truth, as much as continue to approach it and study it, isn't somehow 'more true' than what somebody else thinks of as truth.

Essentially, you'd be obliged to concede that your own worldview is no more or less justified than that of a person who claimed to believe that Cthulu is actually sleeping under the South Pacific?

Maybe he is, I haven't looked.

How do you distinguish between fact and fiction? Or do you? Can you?

Fiction is something different I think. There's fact, and all sorts of people posit different facts. So a fact isn't set in stone, but is nevertheless thought of as true, while fiction is not thought of as true.

So to believe that the world is flat is no closer to the truth than to believe that the earth is a sphere? To believe that the sun spins around the Earth is no more or less accurate than to believe that the earth orbits the sun?

Perhaps you'd like to clarify?

It's not that it's no closer to the truth, it's just that it can only be verified with reference to a particular internally-consistent set of scientific knowledge based on our immensely inaccurate sensory system, which may or may not represent the truth to some degree. So, yeah, I believe it. But I can't validate it to somebody who doesn't hold to the same body of knowledge.

Worldviews that operate on assumptions of total equivocation or absolute certainty are best viewed with the utmost skepticism.

Fair enough.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

To have an option suitable for everybody would have been pretty difficult.

I've had to conduct survey research and develop questionnaires, so I completely sympathize. I didn't mean to sound critical. I just wanted to give my reason for not answering the poll.

So you're saying that it's unlikely that your particular worldview is correct, but that there are certain others which are certainly incorrect?

I believe it's unlikely anybody's worldview is correct (and unsure if this is a possible thing), but I believe that certain worldviews/philosophies/belief-systems are wrong (though I am not certain, as I'm not certain of much).

 

[Sees]

Well these are both just matters of opinion. Something which benefits humanity isn't in some way intrinsically better than something which harms it. But you ascribe that based on your own system of morals and preferences. So, while it may well be true that you like that which causes least harm better than that which suppresses goodwill, and while most people might agree with it, this only stems from your feelings on the matter.




So you're saying that it's unlikely that your particular worldview is correct, but that there are certain others which are certainly incorrect?

To have an option suitable for everybody would have been pretty difficult.



Answer the one you prefer.



Our senses of perception, and indeed our entire array of methods of observing the world we live in, are so inaccurate as to be barely even perceiving things. All we ever really experience is our own nervous system (I can't remember who said that, but somebody). So while certainly, we've built up a massive system of scientific knowledge which is, for the most part internally consistent, there's no real confirmation that this maps to 'reality' as it really is. Only that it can suitably explain, again for the most part, what we observe within our nervous system.



Man, that's an interesting question. I'd say, no. But, within my worldview, it's releasing attachment to opinions about truth, and accepting that what we think of as truth, as much as continue to approach it and study it, isn't somehow 'more true' than what somebody else thinks of as truth.



Maybe he is, I haven't looked.



Fiction is something different I think. There's fact, and all sorts of people posit different facts. So a fact isn't set in stone, but is nevertheless thought of as true, while fiction is not thought of as true.



It's not that it's no closer to the truth, it's just that it can only be verified with reference to a particular internally-consistent set of scientific knowledge based on our immensely inaccurate sensory system, which may or may not represent the truth to some degree. So, yeah, I believe it. But I can't validate it to somebody who doesn't hold to the same body of knowledge.



Fair enough.

This part has my interest -

"Something which benefits humanity isn't in some way intrinsically better than something which harms it. But you ascribe that based on your own system of morals and preferences. So, while it may well be true that you like that which causes least harm better than that which suppresses goodwill, and while most people might agree with it, this only stems from your feelings on the matter."

You have to throw out the basic understanding of what words mean for certain things like goodwill, health, happiness, etc. to not be "better" and not understand the cultural formation of those concepts.

 

[Kirran]

I've had to conduct survey research and develop questionnaires, so I completely sympathize. I didn't mean to sound critical. I just wanted to give my reason for not answering the poll.

Well, good of you to explain yourself.

I believe it's unlikely anybody's worldview is correct (and unsure if this is a possible thing), but I believe that certain worldviews/philosophies/belief-systems are wrong (though I am not certain, as I'm not certain of much).

OK, that makes sense, thanks for clarifying.

What are you certain of?

This part has my interest -

"Something which benefits humanity isn't in some way intrinsically better than something which harms it. But you ascribe that based on your own system of morals and preferences. So, while it may well be true that you like that which causes least harm better than that which suppresses goodwill, and while most people might agree with it, this only stems from your feelings on the matter."

You have to throw out the basic understanding of what words mean for certain things like goodwill, health, happiness, etc. to not be "better" and not understand the cultural formation of those concepts.

Well, certainly, this is the basic cultural understanding, and is why language, which develops within a certain culture, inevitably has various connotations attached all over the place which make it more obtuse in these kinds of discussions

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What are you certain of?

That there shouldn't be as much certainty as there is.

And of Her.

 

[Kirran]

That there shouldn't be as much certainty as there is.

And of Her.

Three or four words of clarification might be good here. I kind of assume you're talking about God, in some sense or another.

EDIT: 'shouldn't'? Prescriptive, no?

 

[Nakosis]

I see truth as subjective. Truth is what an individual to the best of their ability has determined to accept as true. If there is some objective truth, I doubt we humans will ever know it.

We can create truths, but these again are all subjective.

My world view is correct for me. It may not be correct for anyone else. My world view is based on my subjective truths. There may not exist any other truth other than what we subjectively believe and experience.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I voted for the first option, because I do think there is truth and that the search for it is supreme. I'm not a relativist.